Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sarah Palin Shares the Wealth with Alaskans

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Having lived in Alaska for 25 years, I'll say it's absolutely nothing like a wealth redistribution system. The state generates its own wealth through oil revenues. There is no state sales tax or income tax. Public services are paid for through oil income (interest on it, if you want to get technical), and any surplus is divided among the residents. The amount of the dividend every year is dependent on both oil prices and the stock value of the permanent fund (essentially a dividend-bearing mutual fund owned and managed by the state)
Needless to say, theres a good chance it's going pretty low next year. I think after 1987 it dropped to $300/person, which is the lowest I can remember seeing it. Just my 2 cents.

Nathan


Nathan, after 1987 the dividend amount didn't drop but kept rising. This year residents were paid 10x the amount you mentioned above.

lets say I lived 100 miles away from any oil drilling, but I was still a resident of Alaska, what have I directly done to deserve a $3000 christmas bonus that was taken out of the profits of the oil companies?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Why is it that alot of People on this Forum, never check out what thay are talking about before they Speak or post a comment, They have been giving this Money to Alaskans for over 25 Years, this is not Sarah Palin Playing Barak Obama, The Socialist. (Benevolent Heretic)



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretthug
Why is it that alot of People on this Forum, never check out what thay are talking about before they Speak or post a comment, They have been giving this Money to Alaskans for over 25 Years, this is not Sarah Palin Playing Barak Obama, The Socialist. (Benevolent Heretic)


Something you should have done, please read this article which will show you that Palin approved and signed for a further $1200 dollars o ntop of the already high dividend pay out in the form of a rebate. This made the dividend total to $3000+



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Perhaps this varies by state, but I was under the impression that unless an owner had the mineral rights, they're not entitled to squat if someone wants to drill outside their bedroom _



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I like how people keep acting like Socialism is a bad thing.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
One of the things I find ironic is the fact that Alaska, while being the source of so much oil, has some of the highest gas prices in the nation.

From Open Minded Skeptic's source:


Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.


Not sure why this is, maybe transport costs? Do they have refineries up there?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretthug
Why is it that alot of People on this Forum, never check out what thay are talking about before they Speak or post a comment, They have been giving this Money to Alaskans for over 25 Years, this is not Sarah Palin Playing Barak Obama, The Socialist. (Benevolent Heretic)


You're making the same mistake some others in this thread have made. I'm not talking about the "Alaskan Fund", which has been happening for many years. I'm talking about a BRAND NEW bill that Sarah Palin signed into law in 2007 called Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share which taxes corporations and distributes that money to the people.

Why is it that a lot of people on this forum don't read the links so they know what they're talking about?

It's on page one of this thread.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Oh its not hypocrital, she's right, after all its Communism when Democrats do it, Its patrotic when Republicans do it. I voted already for Obama, because if Rush says that this guy will ruin the country like Carter, then I bet we'll get a Regan in 4 years.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by IceColdPro

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
i scanned over 5 pages of partisan bickering, and didn't see mention of Alaska being a commonwealth.

In Alaska, the minerals are owned by the state (i.e., the people). She didn't do anything socialist, she just followed state law. Nothing new. Folks there have been getting a "Christmas bonus" for years from the state as part of the minerals dividend.


True, however, this year Sarah Palin signed off an additional $1200 to EACH alaskan resident that goes on top of the annual dividend.

"Gov. Sarah Palin is almost certain to sign the bill to pay Alaskans the rebate. It was Palin, after all, who last month proposed that lawmakers pay out a $1,200 resource rebate as a way for the state to share some of its multibillion-dollar oil revenue surplus with Alaska residents."

The article goes onto say...


"The energy relief package also includes money to expand the state's Power Cost Equalization program, which provides electricity subsidies in rural areas where power costs are much higher than in the state's major city, Anchorage. Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, a lead architect of House budget bills, said the energy relief package should help residents across a vast and economically diverse state. "We did a good job of addressing rural Alaska's needs," said Meyer, speaking of the electricity subsidy. "Suspending the 8-cent fuel tax will help people who drive a lot in the urban areas." Many lawmakers fretted over distributing $1,200 in free cash to residents. Some questioned whether rich people should get it, whether it was good public policy in an election year, and whether some might use it not for energy but for a big-screen TV set. One lawmaker, Rep. Harry Crawford, D-Anchorage, suggested a good bit of the money might "go up people's noses."


Full Article - I recommend you ALL read it, seems like we all have a little Obama in us after all!

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]


[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]



But it is a dividend. The money belongs to the people of Alaska legally. She signed off on it because her job was to execute the laws of the state.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by IceColdPro

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
i scanned over 5 pages of partisan bickering, and didn't see mention of Alaska being a commonwealth.

In Alaska, the minerals are owned by the state (i.e., the people). She didn't do anything socialist, she just followed state law. Nothing new. Folks there have been getting a "Christmas bonus" for years from the state as part of the minerals dividend.


True, however, this year Sarah Palin signed off an additional $1200 to EACH alaskan resident that goes on top of the annual dividend.

"Gov. Sarah Palin is almost certain to sign the bill to pay Alaskans the rebate. It was Palin, after all, who last month proposed that lawmakers pay out a $1,200 resource rebate as a way for the state to share some of its multibillion-dollar oil revenue surplus with Alaska residents."

The article goes onto say...


"The energy relief package also includes money to expand the state's Power Cost Equalization program, which provides electricity subsidies in rural areas where power costs are much higher than in the state's major city, Anchorage. Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, a lead architect of House budget bills, said the energy relief package should help residents across a vast and economically diverse state. "We did a good job of addressing rural Alaska's needs," said Meyer, speaking of the electricity subsidy. "Suspending the 8-cent fuel tax will help people who drive a lot in the urban areas." Many lawmakers fretted over distributing $1,200 in free cash to residents. Some questioned whether rich people should get it, whether it was good public policy in an election year, and whether some might use it not for energy but for a big-screen TV set. One lawmaker, Rep. Harry Crawford, D-Anchorage, suggested a good bit of the money might "go up people's noses."


Full Article - I recommend you ALL read it, seems like we all have a little Obama in us after all!

[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]


[edit on 30-10-2008 by IceColdPro]



But it is a dividend. The money belongs to the people of Alaska legally. She signed off on it because her job was to execute the laws of the state.


Did you read the article? She signed off on a FURTHER $1200 in the form of a rebate, this money is shared out ON TOP of the dividend that was owed legally. This has NEVER been offered before in the state of Alaska until Palin was Governor. This rebate was part of a NEW bill that Palin introduced.

Further to this she put forth a program called "Power Cost EQUALIZATION", "which provides electricity subsidies in rural areas where power costs are much higher". If Obama had done this in Illinois, the right would have claimed that Obama has previously practiced communism by using tax money to pay a percentage of a citizens energy bill.

I think all of these measures that Palin took were excellent, however, it is a double standard when the right in this forum are claiming that Obama is a commie because he wants to spend tax dollars on working class Americans, who in my humble opinion DESERVE IT!



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IceColdPro
Did you read the article? She signed off on a FURTHER $1200 in the form of a rebate, this money is shared out ON TOP of the dividend that was owed legally. This has NEVER been offered before in the state of Alaska until Palin was Governor. This rebate was part of a NEW bill that Palin introduced.

Further to this she put forth a program called "Power Cost EQUALIZATION", "which provides electricity subsidies in rural areas where power costs are much higher". If Obama had done this in Illinois, the right would have claimed that Obama has previously practiced communism by using tax money to pay a percentage of a citizens energy bill.

I think all of these measures that Palin took were excellent, however, it is a double standard when the right in this forum are claiming that Obama is a commie because he wants to spend tax dollars on working class Americans, who in my humble opinion DESERVE IT!



yes i have read the article. I have discussed this in length in another forum located near my region, and am very aware of the facts surrounding this.

Consider:

A corporation in which you are invested makes greater sums of money than projected. Would you not expect a higher amount of dividend when the checks were written? I know I would.

I couldn't give a rats butt about what one political party would say about the other. That is for people who wish to waste time dabbling in politics. I am worried about what is right, and what is wrong.


For the record, the words Obama spoke, if taken at face value, indicate socialism. This is not surprising, as the socialist ideal of "Labor" crosses in several areas with the Democratic idea of "Working Class".

Is it socialism? Well, i don't think so and neither does the Socialist candidate for president.

But that should have nothing to do with Alaska, as they are a commonwealth and what Palin did is entirely within those laws. The use of such things by a political party amounts to childish finger pointing. This is why I find the whole thing disgusting, childish, low brow, and unAmerican.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


If you don't have me on ignore please read this post directed to you from the previous page.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I am sorry. No, i don't have you on ignore.


I stand corrected. They are not a commonwealth, apparently. But their laws act in much the same way as a commonwealth. I am not sure, but i believe it comes from the lack of participation in the Homestead Act (they weren't a state at the time).

But their actions as a commonwealth (primarily in the arena of land and resource management) is notable (and discussed greatly by several in-state think tanks and resource councils).


The people did something to earn it: they paid taxes.


Yes, it is redistribution of wealth.
They have the oil companies over a barrel (so to speak), as they all want to drill in Alaska and must be willing to play by the game.

At around 70 bucks a barrel, the average oil company makes a solid profit. When you exceed that, they make what could be labelled "superfluous" profits. At 60 a barrel, they start going broke.

What i wonder is, are people complaining because what Obama said was caught and made a big deal (and they are trying to fling the booger back on the GOP side), or because they are truly concerned about what might be a socialist policy in one of the US states?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
What i wonder is, are people complaining because what Obama said was caught and made a big deal (and they are trying to fling the booger back on the GOP side), or because they are truly concerned about what might be a socialist policy in one of the US states?


Thank you.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not flinging boogers. My only point is that Sarah Palin has been jumping all over Obama for his "redistribution of wealth", calling him a Socialist (which he isn't - anyone who says that needs to read up on Socialism) when she has supported redistribution of wealth in her own home state as Governor.

NEITHER are Socialist. They are taxing some people (high income and corporations) and giving the benefits to others in the form of a payout or tax cuts.

Redistribution of wealth DOES NOT equal Socialism.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


yeah...i didn't mean to imply you were a booger flinger...LOL.

You are correct.

That is why i hate politics. All spin (meaning: lies) and little accountability.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by IceColdPro
 


Exactley out of the same fund that has been there for more than 25 years it is not money taken from other (PEOPLES MONEY) Since the State of Alaska has made more money the fund is Larger, so they gave back more MONEY!!!!



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
What i wonder is, are people complaining because what Obama said was caught and made a big deal (and they are trying to fling the booger back on the GOP side), or because they are truly concerned about what might be a socialist policy in one of the US states?


Thank you.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not flinging boogers. My only point is that Sarah Palin has been jumping all over Obama for his "redistribution of wealth", calling him a Socialist (which he isn't - anyone who says that needs to read up on Socialism) when she has supported redistribution of wealth in her own home state as Governor.

NEITHER are Socialist. They are taxing some people (high income and corporations) and giving the benefits to others in the form of a payout or tax cuts.

Redistribution of wealth DOES NOT equal Socialism.


100% Agreed. It can be so difficult sometimes to defend a simple fact, especially when it comes to politics.

I guess even the blindly right here have realised what you are saying is true by definition. However, as silly as their arguments sound about "Obama being a socialist", and even though they realise this themselves deep down, they will continue to use these talking points in other threads or real life discussions, etc. These tabloid "mantras" are the best they can do.

I think there are better candidates than Obama, however, he is the better out of the two. I also prefer his economic, foreign and tax policies over McCain's.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Wow, people sure do know how to justify when it is their guy(gal). Money that should go to private companies is instead given to the state to be spread amongst the people.

No matter when it started, what you call it, or how you try to spin it, it is exactly what she said that Obama would do to destroy this country. That makes her a hypocrite because if she truly believed that, she would be trying to stop it in Alaska wouldn't she?



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by dariousg
 


Wow, people sure do know how to justify when it is their guy(gal). Money that should go to private companies is instead given to the state to be spread amongst the people.

No matter when it started, what you call it, or how you try to spin it, it is exactly what she said that Obama would do to destroy this country. That makes her a hypocrite because if she truly believed that, she would be trying to stop it in Alaska wouldn't she?


while what you say is true, it is her job as the Chief Executive of Alaska to execute the laws of that state. THAT is the most American thing to do...the will of the people.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

while what you say is true, it is her job as the Chief Executive of Alaska to execute the laws of that state. THAT is the most American thing to do...the will of the people.



I am not disputing that am I? All I am saying is that she should not have been able to get away with all this "Obama wants socialism" crap. She should not have been throwing around this average joe crap. She should have tried to be honest in at least some aspect of her campaigning. If that is how Alaska works, fine. If she wants to uphold that, even better. If she wants to then pretend that the worse thing that could happen to the US is a practice she has no problem upholding at home, then she needs to come clean and either not have called Obama a socialist or she should be vocal about her opposition to the way the people of Alaska want to run their state.

It is not about the laws on the books, it is about her trying to portray herself the way that she has.






top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join